Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 184 / Monday, September 24, 2007 / Notices 54257 

WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files in 

IBM–PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format). 

Meeting Accommodations: For 

information on access or services for 

individuals with disabilities, please 

contact the DFO, contact information 

provided above. To request 

accommodation of a disability, please 

contact the DFO, preferably at least 10 

days prior to the meeting, to give EPA 

as much time as possible to process 

your request. 

Dated: September 18, 2007. 

Anthony F. Maciorowski, 

Deputy Director, EPA Science Advisory Board 

Staff Office. 

[FR Doc. E7–18813 Filed 9–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND 

TECHNOLOGY POLICY 

Agency Recognition of Multiple 

Principal Investigators on Federally 

Funded Research Projects 

AGENCY: Executive Office of the 

President, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP) and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Office 

of Federal Financial Management. 

ACTION: Notice of policy on recognition 

of multiple Principal Investigators (PIs) 

on awards made under Federal research 

and research-related programs. 

SUMMARY: Many areas of today’s 

research require multi-disciplinary 

teams in which the intellectual 

leadership of the project is shared 

among two or more individuals. To 

facilitate this team approach through 

recognition of the contributions of the 

team leadership members, OSTP issued 

a memorandum to all Federal research 

agencies on January 4, 2005, requiring 

them to formally allow more than one 

PI on individual research awards. The 

Federal agencies then sought input from 

the research community—scientists, 

research administrators, and 

organizations that represent components 

of the scientific community—on how 

best to implement this policy. This 

input was sought via a Request for 

Information published in the Federal 

Register on July 18, 2005 that posed a 

series of questions around core elements 

that will comprise each agency’s 

implementation plan. The six core 

elements, to be posted on the Research 

Business Models (RBM) Web Site, 

include: (1) Statement of what 

constitutes a PI; (2) designation of 

contact PI; (3) application instructions 

for listing more than one PI; (4) PIs at 

different institutions; (5) access to 

award and review information; and (6) 

identification of all PIs in public data 

systems. The SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION section of this Notice 

provides background on the Research 

Business Models (RBM) Subcommittee 

of the Committee on Science (COS), the 

plan to recognize multiple PIs on 

Federal research projects, a summary of 

the responses to the Request for 

Information, and the government 

response to the comments submitted. 

The final policy on the recognition of 

multiple PIs is contained in the Policy 

Section. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background on RBM 

This project is an initiative of the 

Research Business Models (RBM) 

Subcommittee of the Committee on 

Science (COS), a committee of the 

National Science and Technology 

Council. The RBM Subcommittee’s 

objectives include: 

• Facilitating a coordinated effort 

across Federal agencies to address 

policy implications arising from the 

changing nature of scientific research, 

and 

• Examining the effects of these 

changes on business models for the 

conduct of scientific research sponsored 

by the Federal Government. 

The Subcommittee used public 

comments, agency perspectives, and 

input from a series of regional public 

meetings to identify priority areas in 

which it would focus its initial efforts. 

In each priority area, the Subcommittee 

is pursuing initiatives to promote, as 

appropriate, either common policy, the 

streamlining of current procedures, or 

the identification of agencies’ and 

institutions’ ‘‘effective practices.’’ As 

information about the initiatives 

becomes available, it is posted at the 

Subcommittee’s Internet site http:// 

rbm.nih.gov. 

II. Background on the Recognition of 

Multiple PIs on Federal Research 

Projects 

Many areas of research, in particular, 

translations of complex discoveries into 

useful applications, require multidisciplinary and inter-disciplinary 

teams. Innovation and progress still 

spring from and depend on creative 

individual investigators, but 

collaborative synergy plays an 

increasingly important role in 

advancing science and engineering. 

Multi-disciplinary research teams can 

be organized in a variety of ways. 

Research teams vary in terms of size, 

hierarchy, location of participants, 

goals, and structure. Depending on the 

size and the goals, the management 

structure of a team may include: A 

director and/or multiple directors, 

assistant or associate directors, 

managers, group leaders, team leaders, 

investigators, and others as needed. 

Regardless of how a research team is 

organized, a pertinent and important 

question is how to apportion credit 

fairly if multiple individuals provide 

the intellectual leadership and direction 

of the team effort. 

Acting on the recommendation of the 

RBM Subcommittee, the COS concluded 

that team research would be enhanced 

if all Federal agencies allowed more 

than one PI on individual research 

awards. Some agencies already do this, 

either formally or informally, but the 

COS action, which led to a directive to 

all research agency heads by the 

Director, OSTP, dated January 4, 2005, 

extends the practice to all research 

agencies as a matter of policy. 

Request for Information 

A Request for Information soliciting 

input from the research community on 

several core issues related to 

recognizing multiple PIs was published 

in the Federal Register on July 18, 2005 

to guide the agencies as they developed 

their plans for implementing the policy 

on recognizing multiple PIs. 

Respondents: A total of sixty-three 

comments were received from twentynine biomedical scientists, twenty-three 

universities (Office of Sponsored 

Projects or Vice President for Research), 

nine professional associations, one 

small business, and one unknown 

affiliation. 

Core Elements of Agency 

Implementation Plans, RFI Questions, 

Comments From Respondents, and 

Agency Responses to Comments 

General: Overall opinions on the 

Multiple PI policy (if stated in the 

comment) were overwhelmingly 

favorable: 45 in favor, 8 opposed. 

Answers to the individual questions in 

the RFI were listed and categorized only 

if the respondent addressed that issue 

specifically. Many respondents did not 

reply to the questions individually or 

address some of the issues at all. 

Numbers in parentheses indicate 

multiple responses citing the same issue 

or suggestion. 

#1: Statement of What Constitutes a PI 

Q 1: Will listing more than one 

individual as a PI present any 

difficulties for you or your institution? 

Comments: 

• Need explicit criteria, give 

examples of what is and is not a PI. (7) 

• PI means and needs to be just one 

individual. (12) 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
54258 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 184 / Monday, September 24, 2007 / Notices 

• Keep Co-PI or Co-I titles. (9) 

• Possible abuse—too many PIs. (6) 

• Maintain maximum institutional 

flexibility and autonomy in designating 

PIs. (7) 

• Institutions will have to revise 

processes and databases. (7) 

• Concerns about accountability. (3) 

• New investigators named as PI 

might lose status as new investigator. (4) 

• May be administratively 

cumbersome. (2) 

• Increased administrative burden. (2) 

• Concern about decision-making; if 

no one is in charge, nothing gets done. 

(2) 

• Harder to evaluate departments for 

grant ranking. 

• Should be reserved for large, 

complex projects, not R01-type. 

• Should allow use for just two close 

collaborators on R01-type. 

• Require minimum percent effort 

(e.g., 20%). (2) 

• Do not require minimum effort. 

Agency Response: The Research 

Business Models Subcommittee Task 

Group on Multiple PIs considered these 

comments. The task group viewed most 

of these as concerned with the basic role 

and definition of what it means to be a 

PI. The agencies have agreed on a 

common basic definition that is suitable 

across all agencies and research 

institutions. (See Policy Section of this 

Notice.) In their implementation plans, 

agencies may elaborate on the criteria 

for PIs in their respective areas of 

science, giving examples of what does 

and does not qualify as a PI for 

particular kinds of projects, as well as 

the specific nomenclature that will be 

employed in implementation of the 

multiple PI concept, e.g., Project 

Coordinator, PI and Co-PIs, or 

Coordinating PI. 

Institutions have the option to name 

one or more than one PI for each project. 

It is the prerogative and responsibility of 

the applicant organization to designate 

PI(s) for projects. 

All PIs will be named in the official 

award. There will be no Federal-wide 

limit to the number of PIs per project; 

however, an agency may impose a 

limitation as part of their 

implementation plan. 

#2: Designation of Contact PI 

Q 2: Do you see any difficulties that 

would be created by designation of one 

PI as the Contact PI? Are there 

institutional issues that the agencies 

should consider? 

Comments: 

• Contact PI may become the de facto 

chief PI. (6) 

• Favor since it is important that 

institution/project speak with one voice. 

(3) 

• Most junior PI may be assigned this 

role and/or may feel put upon. (4) 

• Must be able to enforce 

communication responsibilities. (2) 

• Create Chief Operating/Admin 

Officer. (2) 

• Create Lead PI or Project Director 

for management and regulatory 

compliance issues. 

• Agency or institution could set up 

e-mail group for all PIs. (2) 

• Diffusion of accountability. (2) 

• Not practical if awards to more than 

one institution. 

• Should be able to switch over 

course of grant. 

Agency Response: All comments 

addressed the need for a single point of 

contact between the institution and the 

Federal agency on issues concerning 

scientific and technical aspects of the 

project. There was some concern that 

either the designated Contact PI would 

become the de facto overall PI on the 

project or the most junior PI would be 

assigned this as a largely clerical role. It 

is the prerogative of the applicant 

organization to designate the single 

point of contact. The agencies consider 

this ‘‘Contact PI’’ role to be primarily for 

communication purposes on the 

scientific and related budgetary aspects 

of the project (see Agency 

Implementation section below.) 

#3: Application Instructions for Listing 

More Than One PI 

Q3: What issues should the agencies 

consider in developing their 

instructions for applications naming 

more than one PI? 

Comments: 

• Management plan a good idea, but 

only when needed by the type of 

project. (15) 

• Need detailed description of each 

PI’s role and why that justifies PI status; 

give examples of contributions that do 

or do not justify PI status. (15) 

• When is agency approval needed 

for budget reallocation. (3) 

• Grants.gov form allows only one PI. 

(3) 

• Uniform criteria should be adopted 

across agencies; definition in RFI is 

adequate. (2) 

• Limit # of PIs. 

• Need guidelines for compliance, 

coordination, decision-making, 

publication. 

Agency Response: Each agency will 

specify how its standard application 

procedures will be modified, if 

necessary, to reflect the overall policy 

accommodating multiple PIs. This may 

include instructions for describing, 

within the research plan, the specific 

areas of responsibility for each PI and 

how the team will function. The 

government-wide policy does not 

mandate a formal management or 

leadership plan, but a specific agency 

funding opportunity or solicitation may 

require it. 

#4: PIs at Different Institutions 

Q 4: Recognizing that agencies differ 

in the structure of their business 

arrangements with institutions, are there 

ways for the agencies to recognize PIs 

for a team effort involving multiple 

departments or institutions that would 

work well for your institution? What 

issues should the agencies consider in 

deciding on the most appropriate award 

structure? 

Comments: 

• Each type of award structure 

(subawards, separate awards) has its 

advantages in different situations; 

maintain range of award structures as 

appropriate to each situation. (12) 

• Linked awards are a good idea, 

when appropriate. (5) 

• Linked awards may affect 

institution’s FAR simplified acquisition 

threshold. 

• Need to address distribution of 

indirect costs among institutions/ 

departments. (3) 

• Accountability issues between 

institutions. (3) 

• Institutions can handle these issues 

themselves. 

Agency Response: Many respondents 

noted that each type of award structure 

(e.g., subawards or separate awards) has 

advantages in different situations. The 

agencies agree and will continue to use 

a range of award mechanisms. 

Institutions will have great latitude in 

proposing arrangements that will work 

best for the particular project and 

institutions involved. Agencies may, for 

example, use linked awards (separate 

awards to each research organization 

participating in a project), but the 

government-wide policy does not 

mandate their use. 

#5: Access to Award and Review 

Information 

Q 5: Do you favor granting access to 

award and review information to all 

named PIs, not just the Contact PI? Do 

you anticipate any difficulties in 

granting such access? 

Comments: 

• Favor granting access to all (27); 

oppose (0). 

Agency Response: Since there was no 

controversy on this issue, the agencies 

will make review and award 

information available to all named PIs, 

to the extent that they currently make 

such information available to a single 

PI. Agency implementation plans will 

describe how and when this information 

can be accessed. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 184 / Monday, September 24, 2007 / Notices 54259 

#6: Access to Public Data Systems 

Q 6a: Do you anticipate significant 

benefits from listing more than one PI in 

agency databases? Do you anticipate any 

difficulties with such listings? 

Comments: 

• Will guarantee appropriate credit 

for team PIs (all comments cited this). 

• Should include Co-Investigators as 

well as PIs. (7) 

• Enable better tracking of funding by 

agencies and institutions. 

• Will benefit junior investigators. (2) 

• NIH ranking tables would be more 

accurate. (2) 

• Harder to monitor duplicate 

funding. (2) 

• Allows identification of potential 

future collaborators. 

• Provides for multiple contacts per 

project; but not all contacts appropriate. 

Q 6b: Do you anticipate using agency 

data systems with PI information, such 

that investment in alterations to such 

systems would be worthwhile? 

Comments: 

• Warrants investment (9); maybe (2); 

no (0). 

• Numerous comments that this 

would be the most important single 

aspect of implementing the multiple PI 

policy. 

Agency Response: The comments 

emphasized the benefit of giving 

appropriate credit for shared leadership 

of a team project. There was some 

encouragement for agencies to track the 

participation of scientists at less than PI 

level as well, but the policy will not 

require this. Agency data systems will 

eventually list all PIs on multiple PI 

projects. Because changes to existing 

data systems to accommodate this 

requirement may be extremely costly, 

there will be no mandated date for 

achieving these changes. Agency 

implementation plans will be required 

to address the issue of when their data 

systems may be expected to reflect the 

new policy on listing all PIs. Agencies 

may also consult with the Office of 

Management and Budget’s Electronic 

Government (E-gov) office regarding 

system changes that are part of 

implementation plans. 

Other Considerations 

Q 7: Overall, do you think that the 

changes proposed for official 

recognition of multiple PIs will benefit 

multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research? 

Comments: 

• The public comments uniformly 

reinforced the importance of official 

recognition of multiple PIs in 

facilitating multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary research. 

Agency Response: No response is 

necessary; the policy will be 

implemented as described for the 

preceding core issues. 

Q 8: What other suggestions do you 

have for facilitating the recognition of 

multiple PIs? 

Comments: 

• Apportion budgets among PIs 

(favor: 18, distributed evenly across PI, 

university, association respondents; 

oppose: 2, one university, one 

association). 

• Minimize additional administrative 

burden of financial and programmatic 

management. (3) 

• Need designation of responsibility 

for ethical conduct, human subjects, 

animal welfare. (2) 

• Other agencies do not provide 

tracking data as NIH and NSF do. (2) 

• Need procedures for resolving 

disputes. 

• Should have definition of CoInvestigator. 

• Urge rapid and uniform 

implementation across agencies. 

• Provide institutions with ability to 

apportion responsibility along with 

recognition. 

• Allow collaborating PIs to 

participate in other grant mechanisms 

(e.g., cap on number of grants/PI). 

Agency Response: Most of these 

issues have been addressed in the 

previous responses to the core issues. 

Implementation plans to be posted on 

the RBM Web site for the policy on 

multiple PIs will use a common format 

to address each of the core issues. 

Agencies will have the latitude to 

expand upon the basic requirements for 

each issue, as appropriate for their 

research communities, and will address 

these variances in supplemental 

material provided through links to their 

own agency Web sites or through 

published information. 

Apportionment of budgets to 

individual PIs is not a core 

implementation feature. If it is done at 

all, it will be addressed in agencyspecific implementation plans. 

Policy 

All Federal research agencies will 

recognize multiple Principal 

Investigators (PIs) on research projects 

(grants and contracts). Proposing 

institutions may identify individuals as 

PIs in proposals when those individuals 

share the major authority and 

responsibility for leading and directing 

the project, intellectually and 

logistically. This policy does not replace 

the use of a single Principal Investigator 

when that is most appropriate for the 

project. 

Statement of What Constitutes a 

Principal Investigator 

A Principal Investigator is the 

individual(s) a research organization 

designates as having an appropriate 

level of authority and responsibility for 

the proper conduct of the research, 

including the appropriate use of funds 

and administrative requirements such as 

the submission of scientific progress 

reports to the agency. When an 

organization designates more than one 

PI, it identifies them as individuals who 

share the authority and responsibility 

for leading and directing the research, 

intellectually and logistically. The 

sponsoring agency does not infer any 

distinction in scientific stature among 

multiple PIs. 

Discussion 

It should be emphasized that naming 

multiple PIs for a proposed research 

project is solely at the discretion of the 

proposing institution(s). This concept is 

similar to the widely accepted practice 

of recognizing the contributions and 

responsibilities of business partners. 

The government’s recognition of more 

than one individual as PI also is not 

intended to alter the working 

relationship between team members as 

they collaboratively allocate resources 

within the team, subject to any 

constraints of the awardee institution or 

the Federal agency under the award 

terms and conditions, nor as they 

apportion credit for research 

accomplishments. Compliance 

requirements will continue to apply to 

individuals and institutions, as they do 

today, regardless of the designation of 

multiple PIs. 

The agencies recognize that teams 

frequently cut across institutional and 

geographic boundaries and that team 

efforts therefore often involve 

subcontracting or consortia 

arrangements between different 

institutions. Based on the experience 

that some agencies already have with 

research teams spanning multiple 

institutions, the agencies are confident 

that recognition of personnel involved 

in multi-institution research projects 

will not substantively alter these well 

established relationships between 

institutions. 

Agency Implementation 

In order to implement the policy on 

recognition of multiple PIs, each Federal 

research agency will post in the 

Research Business Models Toolkit its 

own plan for implementing the policy 

beginning in calendar year 2008. 

Because changes to existing data 

systems to accommodate the policy may 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES
54260 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 184 / Monday, September 24, 2007 / Notices 

be costly, there will be no mandated 

date for achieving these changes. 

Agency implementation plans will be 

required to address the issue of when 

their data systems may be expected to 

reflect the new policy. Agency 

implementation plans will be posted in 

the RBM website no later than February 

2008. Each agency’s implementation 

plan will include the following 

elements: 

(1) Statement of What Constitutes a 

Principal Investigator 

Each agency will describe if its 

definition of PI differs in any way from 

the Federal-wide definition either 

routinely or in special solicitations. 

(2) Designation of Contact PI or Project 

Coordinator 

Each project with multiple PIs will 

have a Contact PI, or Project 

Coordinator, to whom agency program 

officials will direct all communications 

related to scientific, technical, and 

budgetary aspects of the project. By 

recognizing a person as a Contact PI or 

Project Coordinator, a Federal agency 

will not confer any difference in 

scientific stature to that person. Some 

agencies may designate a specific term 

for this role in their agency-specific 

implementation procedures, which may 

differ by solicitation or type of award 

mechanism, for example Project 

Coordinator, PI and Co-PIs, or 

Coordinating PI. 

(3) Application Instructions 

Each agency will specify how its 

standard application procedures will be 

modified, if necessary, to reflect the 

overall policy accommodating multiple 

PIs. 

(4) PIs at Different Institutions 

Agencies will use the full range of 

award mechanisms currently used by 

each agency, and institutions will have 

great latitude in proposing arrangements 

that will work best for the particular 

project and institutions involved. 

(5) Access to Review and Award 

Information 

Agencies will make review and award 

information available to all named PIs, 

to the extent that they provide this 

information to single PIs. 

(6) Identification of All PIs in Public 

Data Systems 

Agency data systems will eventually 

list all PIs on multiple PI projects. 

Agency implementation plans will 

address the issue of when their data 

systems may be expected to reflect the 

new policy on listing all PIs. 

Pamela J. Smith, 

Budget Analyst, Budget and Administration 

Division. 

[FR Doc. 07–4638 Filed 9–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3170–W7–P 

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE 

UNITED STATES 

Notice of Open Special Meeting of the 

Sub-Saharan Africa Advisory 

Committee (SAAC) of the ExportImport Bank of the United States 

(Export-Import Bank) 

SUMMARY: The Sub-Saharan Africa 

Advisory Committee was established by 

Public Law 105–121, November 26, 

1997, to advise the Board of Directors on 

the development and implementation of 

policies and programs designed to 

support the expansion of the Bank’s 

financial commitments in Sub-Saharan 

Africa under the loan, guarantee and 

insurance programs of the Bank. 

Further, the committee shall make 

recommendations on how the Bank can 

facilitate greater support by U.S. 

commercial banks for trade with SubSaharan Africa. 

Time and Place: October 10, at 2 to 5 

p.m. The meeting will be held at the 

Export-Import Bank in Room 1143, 811 

Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 

20571. 

Agenda: Following a panel 

presentation on China’s development 

strategy and its impact on U.S. 

commercial interests generally and in 

Africa specifically, the meeting agenda 

shall include a status report on the 2006 

SAAC recommendations to Congress; 

discussion on the 2007 SAAC 

recommendations to Congress; an 

update on the Competitiveness Working 

Group; the upcoming Africa focused 

international business development 

initiatives; and special recognition of 

the service by SAAC members to the 

Board. 

Public Participation: The meeting will 

be open to public participation, and the 

last 10 minutes will be set aside for oral 

questions or comments. Members of the 

public may also file written statement(s) 

before or after the meeting. If any person 

wishes auxiliary aids (such as a sign 

language interpreter) or other special 

accommodations, please contact, prior 

to October 10, 2007, Barbara Ransom, 

Room 1241, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20571, Voice: (202) 

565–3525 or TDD (202) 565–3377. 

Further Information: For further 

information, contact Barbara Ransom, 

Room 707, 811 Vermont Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20571, (202) 565–3525. 

Kamil Cook, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 07–4700 Filed 9–21–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6690–01–M 

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS 

COMMISSION 

Notice of Public Information 

Collection(s) Being Reviewed by the 

Federal Communications Commission 

September 14, 2007. 

SUMMARY: The Federal Communications 

Commission, as part of its continuing 

effort to reduce paperwork burden, 

invites the general public and other 

Federal agencies to take this 

opportunity to comment on the 

following information collection(s), as 

required by the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104–13. 

An agency may not conduct or sponsor 

a collection of information unless it 

displays a current valid control number. 

No person shall be subject to any 

penalty for failing to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

PRA that does not display a valid 

control number. Comments are 

requested concerning: (a) Whether the 

proposed collection of information is 

necessary for the proper performance of 

the functions of the Commission, 

including whether the information shall 

have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of 

the Commission’s burden estimate; (c) 

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collected; and 

(d) ways to minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on the 

respondents, including the use of 

automated collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology. 

DATES: Written PRA comments should 

be submitted on or before November 23, 

2007. If you anticipate that you will be 

submitting comments, but find it 

difficult to do so within the period of 

time allowed by this notice, you should 

advise the contact listed below as soon 

as possible. 

ADDRESSES: Direct all PRA comments to 

Les Smith, Federal Communications 

Commission, Room 1–C216, 445 12th 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554, or 

via the Internet to PRA@fcc.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

additional information or copies of the 

information collection(s) contact Les 

Smith at (202) 418–0217 or via the 

Internet at PRA@fcc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

OMB Control Number: 3060–XXXX. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with NOTICES